Steward Partners Global Advisory, LLC v. Tucker

Background

Steward Partners Global Advisory, LLC, Steward Partners Holdings, LLC, and Steward Partners Management Holdings sued Travis Tucker, a former Steward employee. According to the Amended Complaint, Tucker worked at Steward until his involuntary termination on June 15, 2021. Afterward, the parties entered into a Separation Agreement and a Redemption Agreement. Under the Redemption Agreement, Steward agreed to redeem Tucker’s ownership units for $220,402.56 in 20 quarterly payments. The Separation Agreement provided that a default could reduce the redemption price to zero and require Tucker to repay payments already received.

Steward alleged that Tucker entered its Andover office after his termination, accessed and used company systems and information, directed securities trades, failed to close Steward accounts, and failed to return company property. Steward also alleged that Tucker violated a non-disparagement provision by signing an affidavit supporting a female former employee’s sexual-harassment allegations against Steward employees and leadership. Some of the affidavit’s statements were later published in the media. Steward notified Tucker that it considered his conduct a default and stopped future redemption payments.

Tucker moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. He argued that Steward still had not adequately pleaded contract claims concerning his office visits and other conduct, that the non-disparagement claim was insufficiently pleaded, and that the federal Speak Out Act barred the non-disparagement claim.

Office, property, and trading allegations

The court concluded that Steward’s allegations about Tucker’s post-termination office conduct remained too general. Steward did not identify the property Tucker allegedly failed to return, specify what confidential information Tucker accessed, used, or disclosed, identify which accounts he failed to close, point to a contract provision that the office visits or account conduct violated, explain what securities-trading activities violated the agreement, or allege resulting damages with enough detail. The court therefore found that Steward had not adequately stated a breach-of-contract claim based on Tucker’s use and access of Steward’s property and related conduct.

The court nevertheless granted Steward one final opportunity to amend. It stated that counsel’s representations at oral argument left open the possibility of a potentially meritorious claim, despite the lack of sufficient factual detail, and that the anticipated amendment would not prejudice Tucker.

Non-disparagement claim

The court held that Steward plausibly alleged a breach of the non-disparagement provision based on Tucker’s affidavit. The Amended Complaint identified what Tucker allegedly said, when he said it, and the people or entities toward whom the statements were directed. The alleged statements concerned sexual harassment by two Steward employees, inadequate supervision under a divisional president, and an employee bringing a loaded gun into the office. The court found that these allegations plausibly suggested that the statements harmed the reputation of Steward’s current or former officers, directors, employees, representatives, or agents covered by the agreement.

The court separately rejected the argument that the media publication itself established a breach, because Steward did not allege that Tucker caused or participated in the publication. That point did not defeat the claim because the affidavit statements themselves were sufficiently alleged.

Speak Out Act

The court had previously explained that the Speak Out Act would apply only if the non-disparagement provision was agreed to before the relevant sexual-harassment dispute arose. The Amended Complaint alleged that the employee complained to Steward before Tucker signed the Separation Agreement, which became effective on July 23, 2021. Accepting those allegations as true and construing them in Steward’s favor, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the Act barred the claim. The court noted that later discovery might develop facts bearing on the issue.

Disposition

The court granted Tucker’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It found the allegations concerning Tucker’s post-termination office, property, account, and trading conduct inadequate, while allowing the non-disparagement claim based on the affidavit to proceed at this stage and declining to find it barred by the Speak Out Act. The court granted Steward leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by September 15, 2025, and extended the deadline for the parties’ joint case-management submission to September 2, 2025.